--- Brec Morton <[email protected]> wrote: > Years of observation of the effects of similar > chemicals' effects on stones > apparently have no sway? Just a shaving cream > specific test will suffice? Yet more claims are of no use at all. There are plenty of claims of observations of Bigfoot and UFOs - that doesn't make them any more real. What is of use is actual evidence, rather than just yet another claim. Rather than make yet another claim, why not just show the evidence? > Seems like for you the easy way works, regardless of > the ultimate, even if > it is just remotely possible, effect it may have. Is > that correct? Get in > and get out? I'm not trying to be nasty but, again, > why add something > foreign to the stone when it is not necessary? I don't think you are being nasty, but you are clearly being presumptuous. I don't use shaving cream. So that pretty much destroys your strawman argument that I am just lazy, or whatever. Moreover, you miss the point. The point is not that there is a reason to add anything to the stone...the point is that claiming adding shaving cream to the stone is harmful is baseless. There is a difference. Brock Way __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

So, my earlier thought was correct. You are simply being argumentative for the sake of argument. Not nice or helpful. You have no evidence that it doesn't do harm, yet you are promoting introducing chemicals onto valuable information not to mention nature. Write something with shaving cream on your own vehicle or the side of a brick and watch the results. Even a privacy fence will do. Don't use a water hose, use a gallon or two of water to rinse it. Let us all know what happens.... -----Original Message----- From: Brock Way [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 4:10 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [MO-CEM] shaving cream on tombstones --- Brec Morton <[email protected]> wrote: > Years of observation of the effects of similar > chemicals' effects on stones > apparently have no sway? Just a shaving cream > specific test will suffice? Yet more claims are of no use at all. There are plenty of claims of observations of Bigfoot and UFOs - that doesn't make them any more real. What is of use is actual evidence, rather than just yet another claim. Rather than make yet another claim, why not just show the evidence? > Seems like for you the easy way works, regardless of > the ultimate, even if > it is just remotely possible, effect it may have. Is > that correct? Get in > and get out? I'm not trying to be nasty but, again, > why add something > foreign to the stone when it is not necessary? I don't think you are being nasty, but you are clearly being presumptuous. I don't use shaving cream. So that pretty much destroys your strawman argument that I am just lazy, or whatever. Moreover, you miss the point. The point is not that there is a reason to add anything to the stone...the point is that claiming adding shaving cream to the stone is harmful is baseless. There is a difference. Brock Way __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ==== MO-CEMETERIES Mailing List ==== To unsubscribe from this list, send ONLY the word UNSUBSCRIBE to the utility address [email protected] If you are trying to unsubscribe from the Digest list, use the same utility address but change the -L- to a -D- ============================== View and search Historical Newspapers. Read about your ancestors, find marriage announcements and more. Learn more: http://www.ancestry.com/s13969/rd.ashx

--- "E.D. Seevers" <[email protected]> wrote: > You have no evidence that it > doesn't do harm, yet you are promoting introducing > chemicals onto valuable > information not to mention nature. Firstly, how can I disprove a legend? Am I also going to prove that bigfoot doesn't exist? After all, nobody has proved bigfoot doesn't exist, therefore he must, right? The whole notion that I should provide evidence that it does no harm is a logical fallacy of appealing to lack of proof of the negative. This is a well known logical fallacy. Moreover, I am not promoting using shaving cream. I am pointing out that the assertion that shaving cream harms tombstones is without evidenciary basis. If I point out that saying the alphabet backwards is not dangerous, am I also promoting people saying the alphabet backwards? > Write something > with shaving cream on > your own vehicle or the side of a brick and watch > the results. We are talking about tombstones, not cars. There is no need to pretend that I said it was safe to put shaving cream on anything imaginable. What I said was that there is no evidence that shows the claim that shaving cream harms tombstones is true. Brock Way __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com